Umm its explicitly stated that the Doctor is supposed to die on Trenzalore but doesn’t anyway. Clara breaks the rules. She changed history. It’s not a plot hole, it’s part of the plot. The point wasn’t fixed and Clara changed the future
Go look at my last response.
I don’t see how it works.
It’s clearly stated you can’t change events you’re part of. If the Doctor doesn’t die on Trenzalore, NotD can’t happen and Clara can’t jump into the Time Stream.
If Clara doesn’t jump in the Time Stream, the Doctor can’t meet Oswin or Clara Oswin, inspiring him to look for the real Clara, nulling of series 7 part 2. (I’m not even going to get into the long term effects of this, such as Clara never being there to save the Doctor a billion times and him thus dying on several occasions).
BUT WAIT, THERES MORE.
Clara’s crying is what inspired the Doctor to save Gallifrey. If she isn’t with him, he doesn’t save Gallifrey, he destroys it with War and Ten.
If he doesn’t save Gallifrey, there’s no “oldest question in the universe”, and therefor the Church of the Silence is never created.
If the Church is never created, the plot of series 6 never happens and River Song as we know her CANT exist.
Also, it the Church isn’t created, Kovarian can’t blow up the TARDIS. Therefor the plot of series 5 as we know it doesn’t happen.
Literally everything from Eleventh Hour on is impossible and a paradox if the Doctor does not die on Trenzalore.
So the future writers can just do something to say Clara just never met the Doctor or something, and all of Moffat’s era implodes upon itself?
I think this revelation will go down in anti-Moffat history.
They can either get rid of Clara, or get rid of Missy (who’s heavily implied to have been the reason modern Clara called the Doctor in the first place, thus beginning the chain of events that would lead to everything else). If they get rid of Missy, we could have Jenna Coleman making cameos in the future, as regular Clara.
Hopefully the next shorunner will see this and do something to spark this chain of undoing events.
Haha my “if I was showrunner” masterplan incorporates this into a multi-season arc, so I’ve thought about this a lot. (Yeah I daydream about how I would save Doctor Who I’m a nerd w/e)
the-wolf-in-the-police-box for next showrunner.
My “era” would literally be obscure classic who references, Rose, Donna and Martha shout outs, bad puns, and thinly disguised shade-throwing at Moffat. Oh and everyone would be hella gay.
So like, I think I’d be the best showrunner in the show’s history nbd
Wow that’s mind blowing. @_@. Interesting and hopefully not dumb question though, How would that effect 12 and how would that effect 11 personality and story wise?
Idk the whole situations just a big ol fuck up at this point.
I mean, realistically Twelve wouldn’t exist, because there would be no Gallifrey to give out regenerations to save the Doctor. But if there’s no Gallifrey to save the Doctor, he dies on Trenzalore and everything is put back into place.
It’s all just a mess because Moffat can’t keep track of his own writing.
Just ignore Moffat’s random War Doctor addition and Twelve can exist, because then you wouldn’t be going over the limit.
Or if you really want to, just say the War Doctor is an older version of Eight, or whatever. I honestly like that better than The Night of the Doctor explanation for the War Doctor.
I always put the Clara ‘echoes’ down to a causal loop that cancelled out meaning that in established history there are none. They were just a possible timeline, that the Doctor can pick up on more than others due to his close proximity to Clara, and what she remembers doing.
i may be poor in money but i’m rich in star trek references
Rule of Acquisition #74: Knowledge equals profit.
There are no Commandments in art and no easy axioms for art appreciation. “Do I like this?” is the question anyone should ask themselves at the moment of confrontation with the picture. But if “yes,” why “yes”? and if “no,” why “no”? The obvious direct emotional response is never simple, and ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the “yes” or “no” has nothing at all to do with the picture in its own right.
“I don’t understand this poem”
“I never listen to classical music”
“I don’t like this picture”
are common enough statements but not ones that tell us anything about books, painting, or music. They are statements that tell us something about the speaker. That should be obvious, but in fact, such statements are offered as criticisms of art, as evidence against, not least because the ignorant, the lazy, or the plain confused are not likely to want to admit themselves as such. We hear a lot about the arrogance of the artist but nothing about the arrogance of the audience. The audience, who have not done the work, who have not taken any risks, whose life and livelihood are not bound up at every moment with what they are making, who have given no thought to the medium or the method, will glance up, flick through, chatter over the opening chords, then snap their fingers and walk away like some monstrous Roman tyrant.
Jeanette Winterson on ignorance vs. distaste and how learning to speak the language of art transforms us – one of the best things I’ve read in years. (via explore-blog)